User talk:Mikeblas

Verification needed on Plantago raoulii

Thanks for checking the page Plantago raoulii for referencing errors. Do I understand correctly that I made some kind of referencing error, which you fixed, and added the reference you thought was correct, and that by adding the [verification needed] and tagging me, that you wanted me to double check it? I've done that and all looked correct, so I removed the tags. Hopefully I have understood correctly! Thanks for the work you do and for any tips to avoid making this kind of error in future. Stitchbird2 (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Indeed, since the original version of the article, you used references named ":02" that were never defined anywhere. That left some of the prose unreferenced. You probably meant ":2", but sine the material is pretty technical, I can't verify that myself. Just the same, I wanted to fix the referencing errors, so I took a whack at it and marked my changes for verification. If you're happy with the fixes, feel free to remove the {{verify inline}} tags. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Help at AE

Hi, I observed that you have edited the article about Aksai Chin. Please see the AE request here and respond there as an admin. Thanks!-Haani40 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have anything to contribute to that enforcement request. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Baiting dead-end rabbit holes

Regarding your edit summary, don't link to redirects: all of those entries were originally correct at the time they were added to this navbox template, but the targets were later moved (renamed). [1] [2] [3] [4] If you had just mentioned you're fixing old double redirects—instead of coming off sounding like you're scolding a wrong action—I'd have glanced at your edit, shrugged, and moved on... instead of wasting time digging into it. Seems that AGF has more benefits than just lubricating the social fabric, like not encouraging others to research dead-ends.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here. I fix links to redirect in navigation boxes (and other navigation features) because being redirected while navigating the corpus is confusing, and somewhat defeats the purpose of the navigation feature. Who is it that you think I scolded, and where? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The where is in my first link above. I know full well why you made the edit; that's not at issue here. However, your edit summary was a comment on contributors, not content. The consequences of your choice of such wording was to waste my time to discover who (I sometimes clean up after whos) only to find out that no one linked to redirects and your edit summary was a wrong direction sign; precision would have been more helpful. Your wording assumed bad faith when there was none. So instead of me cleaning up more wrong edits from a who that linked to a redirect (since there was no such action and no such who), I'm correcting you so you don't waste my time in the future with imprecise non-AGF edit summaries on pages on my watchlist.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'm not sure why you're so angry, but what if you read my comment as "[changed the content so that we] don't link to redirects"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Your assistance is highly appreciated by both the admin and non-admin regulars of copyright cleanup. Thank you for your diligence, and I hope to see you around! Sennecaster (Chat) 01:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you so much! :) -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Silent Hill (film)

Hi, my work on the page was left unfinished because I was discouraged by another editor, so it has been like that for some time. Maybe one day I'll finish it. Take care. ภץאคгöร 22:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (Simeon Woods Road)

Hello,

Thank you very much for your help fixing that undefined citation in the Simeon Woods Road article. I apologize for my technical confusion. I wish the visual editor did a better job when it comes to recognizing when using the same source for a template and the prose. I really appreciated your assistance!

Thanks again.

--Infrastorian (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help. It's sad that referencing has become so complex and confusing. While the Visual Editor helps, it certainly has limitations and bugs. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Ref fixes at Diving weighting system

Hi Mikeblas, The fixes that you reverted at Diving weighting system were the removal of links that led to a usurped site, now a gambling site, from sources that are available in printed form as journal articles, so the basic references remain valid. The archived links are to the abstracts, the inks to the actual documents from the archived abstract go to the gambling site. If you have a better suggestion for a fix than removing the no longer useful original links and archived links, please let me know, because there are hundreds of them on Wikipedia tha need to be examined and where possible fixed in some way, as we do not need stealth spamlinks. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! Isn't the fix to use archive-url with a copy of the original page, and mark the reference url-status=usurped? The documentation for {{cite journal}} says that usurped "selects |archive-url=; used when the domain in |url= no longer serves its original intent, particularly when the domain has been (mis)appropriated by other entities, such as vice, reseller and advertising sites; links to |url= are suppressed in the rendering." That seems like exactly what we want. Completely removing both URLs, as I reverted, removed the viable archive references which are a significant aid for verifiability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, That would be fine if the archived page was the actual document, but in these cases the archived documents are just the abstracts, the other information in a journal reference, like title, journal, author details, date, volume etc, which are still in the CS1 template, and a link to the original url where the original archived document was stored, which is now a link to the usurped domain – a gambling site. Keeping those links basically achieves the goal of the usurpers, in taking our readers to their spam site, and does not actually allow verification. The original repository system was vulnerable to this in an unusual and unforeseen way, and our editors, myself included, did not understand this vulnerability, and the system we had to backup to web-archives was not set up to check that the url was to another link before it reached the actual document. Fortunately the actual documents are adequately identified so that a general web search should still find them if they are on the web, and will still correctly identify the original paper sources, so the references are still valid without the url. I have sometimes been able to find alternative internet copies, but that is not always possible, as many are pre-internet. Have you actually tested the links you replaced, to see where they go if you try to get to the actual referenced document? Please do that, as I think it will be more persuasive than anything I can say. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)